The Truth about the Gallileo affair - by an Atheist

[Stephen168]

And yet in the Galileo affair, the Church very clearly and explicitly used a literal interpretation of the Bible to conclude that heliocentrism was false. Sticking your fingers in your ears and singing “lalala I can’t hear you” will not change this fact, and merely illustrates how some Catholics still do not understand what St Augustine clearly warned you against.

Sticking your fingers in your ears and singing “lalala I can’t hear you” will not change the fact that some anti-catholics choose not to understand the history of science; namely Tycho Brahe. Their focus is to beat up the Church.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

And yet in the Galileo affair, the Church very clearly and explicitly used a literal interpretation of the Bible to conclude that heliocentrism was false. Sticking your fingers in your ears and singing “lalala I can’t hear you” will not change this fact, and merely illustrates how some Catholics still do not understand what St Augustine clearly warned you against.

I think you are congentially incapable of making an objective judgment in regard to this issue - and others I imagine. What you say here simply is not true. The Church never had any teaching in regard to heliocentrism. The problem, in the eyes of those Churchmen invloved, was that the body of the faithful saw the scriptures as teaching that the earth was the center of the universe. So before allowing any other view to be taught by theologians the Church, Bellermine et al, wanted absolute scientific verification before allowing theologians to teach some other view. And I assure you that Catholics understand Augustine just fine.

Linus2nd

 

[Stephen168]

Thanks for finding the post linking the Commission report but I’m not sure what your point is. As said, Galileo was right. As said, it is not possible to prove irrefutably a posteriori claims. And as said, a few line after your quote:

"For their part, Galileo’s adversaries, neither before nor after him, have discovered anything which could constitute a convincing refutation of Copernican astronomy.”

My point is: The OP listed five myths associated with the Galileo Affair. While we can add volumes to the details of the how, who, and why; they are, in fact, myths. For example, adding that Galileo’s adversaries have never disproved heliocentrism, doesn’t change the myth that Galileo proved it.

Had the Church proven geocentrism? Or at least disproven heliocentrism?

Despite the fact that the Church, even in its own estimation, had not scientifically proven heliocentrism to be false or geocentrism to be true.

To understand the Galileo Affair, one has to understand the Church, Galileo, and science.
As an analogy, I think of Galileo driving through an intersection and getting a ticket. Most folks seem to focus on him getting a ticket when they don’t realize the light was red at the time he drove through the intersection.

Three of the five myths of the OP have to do with science (the color of the light).

Michael Flynn’s The Great Ptolemaic Smackdown is a great history of science, and he does a good job with Galileo and the Church.

(You do realise that not only had the church not proved heliocentrism false, and geocentrism true, but that it turns out that geocentrism is utterly false and heliocentrism far far closer to the truth?)

:whacky:

 

[Stephen168]

I think you are congentially incapable of making an objective judgment in regard to this issue - and others I imagine. What you say here simply is not true. The Church never had any teaching in regard to heliocentrism. The problem, in the eyes of those Churchmen invloved, was that the body of the faithful saw the scriptures as teaching that the earth was the center of the universe. So before allowing any other view to be taught by theologians the Church, Bellermine et al, wanted absolute scientific verification before allowing theologians to teach some other view. And I assure you that Catholics understand Augustine just fine.

Linus2nd

Personal theology (exegesis of the Scriptures) was a mark of the Protestant revolt. Galileo, while not giving a personal theology, was telling the Church it should change its theology to conform to the new astronomy; a no-no according to the Council of Trent. The 30 Years War, a religious war between Catholics and Protestants, was in full swing during the time of the trial. I think this was a key reason the Church had zero tolerance for talking probabilities, and demanded absolute proof of heliocentrism. But even if the Church was willing to talk probabilities, with what man could observe at the time, heliocentricism was not very probable.

 

[DrTaffy]

Sticking your fingers in your ears and singing “lalala I can’t hear you” will not change the fact that some anti-catholics choose not to understand the history of science; namely Tycho Brahe.

Really, Tycho Brahe was an anti-catholic who chose not to understand the history of science? Who would have thunk it!

Some catholics still think geocentrism is true, or that homosexuals should be burnt at the stake. Would this justify sweeping statements that these are Catholic teaching? The OP claimed that these ‘lies’ were taught in school textbooks, but none of you have yet produced evidence of lies being taught in this way.

Their focus is to beat up the Church.

It is not beating up the church to point out that it is humanly fallible, or where it has made mistakes, or to object to you lot apparently trying to whitewash such mistakes in order to ignore the lessons of history.

 

[DrTaffy]

I think you are congentially incapable of making an objective judgment in regard to this issue - and others I imagine.

And I think that such personal abuse is not in keeping with the ethos or the rules of this forum.

What you say here simply is not true.

Gosh, another accusation of lying. Were you not just denying that you did this?

The Church never had any teaching in regard to heliocentrism.

You can quibble about whether or not the Papal Condemnation counts as ‘teaching’, but it is undeniable that the Church took an official position that heliocentrism was false and heretical, and could not be taught or believed anywhere under its jurisdiction, and that failing to believe geocentrism was at least “erroneous in faith”, and that it took action to enforce this position.

The problem, in the eyes of those Churchmen invloved, was that the body of the faithful saw the scriptures as teaching that the earth was the center of the universe.

In other words taking a literal interpretation of the Bible as a science book.

So before allowing any other view to be taught by theologians the Church, Bellermine et al, wanted absolute scientific verification before allowing theologians to teach some other view.

Had the church’s own theologians been the only ones forbidden from believing or teaching heliocentrism, that would have been somewhat more defensible. But such was not the case.

And not allowing a scientific view to be held will always be anti-science.

And I assure you that Catholics understand Augustine just fine.

You assure me. You could equally assure me that Moscow has just been invaded by an army of leprechauns mounted on flying pigs. This thread, and so many others, show that many Catholics have still not understood St Augustine’s warning.

 

[inocente]

The world and the Church remember many myths about the trial including the ones listed in the OP:

1. “Galileo proved the earth went around the sun and not the other way around.”
   Actually, he did not.
2. “The Church rejected science, condemned heliocentrism and was ignorant of the science behind Copernicus’ theory.”
   This is also a myth. In fact, many of Galileo’s staunchest champions and defenders were churchmen and many of his attackers were fellow scientists.
3. “The Church condemned heliocentrism because it believed the Bible had to be interpreted literally.”
   The Catholic Church did not (and does not) teach that the Bible had to be interpreted literally
4. “Galileo was imprisoned in chains, tortured and threatened with being burned at the stake.”
   In fact, far from groaning in any dungeons, Galileo spent all of his 1633 trial as the honoured guest of various senior churchmen in several luxurious palaces and apartments in Rome.
5. Galileo was condemned simply for using science to question Church teachings, which was forbidden by the Church.

No evidence has been put forward for any widespread belief in these myths.

I asked for the OP’s claimed high school and university texts but never got any, so we can conclude that no students are taught these things.

How about you just cite half a dozen websites which repeat any of these supposed myths. Not blogs or loony sites, but websites belonging to organizations you believe have influence on the world. Half a dozen isn’t many but should be enough to demonstrate your claim that these are widespread myths rather than just screwballs.

You’re making the claim so it’s for you to substantiate. Until you do, you can’t complain if others dismiss it as fallacious.

Yes, the bible has never been considered a science book, that is why #3 is a myth.

I’m stunned you requoted Ratzinger and edited out the sentence where he specifically refutes that.

Wow, history denial on stilts. Try reading and understanding what your own Church says instead of sweeping it under the carpet.

Pope Benedict:

*One answer was already worked out some time ago, as the scientific view of the world was gradually crystallizing; many of you probably came across it in your religious instruction. It says that the Bible is not a natural science textbook, nor does it intend to be such. It is a religious book, and consequently one cannot obtain information about the natural sciences from it. One cannot get from it a scientific explanation of how the world arose; one can only glean religious experience from it. …

I believe that this view is correct, but it is not enough. For when we are told that we have to distinguish between the images themselves and what those images mean, then we can ask in turn: Why wasn’t that said earlier? Evidently it must have been taught differently at one time or else Galileo would never have been put on trial.*

The Pontifical Commission:

“It is in that historical and cultural framework, far removed from our own times, that Galileo’s judges, incapable of dissociating faith from an age-old cosmology, believed, quite wrongly, that the adoption of the Copernican revolution, in fact not yet definitively proven, was such as to undermine Catholic tradition, and that it was their duty to forbid its being taught. This subjective error of judgement, so clear to us today, led them to a disciplinary measure from which Galileo ‘had much to suffer’. These mistakes must be frankly recognised, as you, Holy Father, have requested.”

Pope John Paul II:

“The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world’s structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture.”

 

[inocente]

i think you are congentially incapable of making an objective judgment in regard to this issue - and others i imagine.

there is no need for abuse is there?

 

[inocente]

I think you are congentially incapable of making an objective judgment in regard to this issue - and others I imagine.

That’s appalling, there’s no excuse for such lack of respect.

 

[Stephen168]

Yes, the bible has never been considered a science book, that is why #3 is a myth.
DrTaffy;12536497:

And yet in the Galileo affair, the Church very clearly and explicitly used a literal interpretation of the Bible to conclude that heliocentrism was false. Sticking your fingers in your ears and singing “lalala I can’t hear you” will not change this fact, and merely illustrates how some Catholics still do not understand what St Augustine clearly warned you against.

Sticking your fingers in your ears and singing “lalala I can’t hear you” will not change the fact that some anti-catholics choose not to understand the history of science; namely Tycho Brahe. Their focus is to beat up the Church.

Really, Tycho Brahe was an anti-catholic who chose not to understand the history of science? Who would have thunk it!

You just can’t bring yourself to admit that the Church was supported by the science of the day.

And I assure you that Catholics understand Augustine just fine.
DrTaffy;12537912:

You assure me. You could equally assure me that Moscow has just been invaded by an army of leprechauns mounted on flying pigs. This thread, and so many others, show that many Catholics have still not understood St Augustine’s warning.

You just keep repeating the myth. See Post 320.

Some catholics still think geocentrism is true, or that homosexuals should be burnt at the stake. Would this justify sweeping statements that these are Catholic teaching? The OP claimed that these ‘lies’ were taught in school textbooks, but none of you have yet produced evidence of lies being taught in this way.

It is not beating up the church to point out that it is humanly fallible, or where it has made mistakes, or to object to you lot apparently trying to whitewash such mistakes in order to ignore the lessons of history.

The OP listed 5 myths of the Galileo affair.
Because of the Church’s teaching on same-sex marriage, sodomy, abortion, and birth control there are anti-Catholics who just can’t admit that they are myths.

No evidence has been put forward for any widespread belief in these myths.

Are you now admitting that they are, in fact, myths?

Repeating the myths listed in the OP IS whitewashing history.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

That’s appalling, there’s no excuse for such lack of respect.

I think you two must be related,

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

I think you two must be related,

No, I mean it, I got as far as clicking the report button.

Are you now admitting that they are, in fact, myths?

I asked you to substantiate your claim and all you’ve done is yet more ducking and diving.

---

I’m done here as the “defenders” have proved beyond reasonable doubt that they have no case whatsoever. They have tried to dismiss JPII and the Pontifical Commission and have brought no evidence at all for any of their claims. Instead there has been a whole lot of wriggling, wild conspiracy theories, history denial and outrageous insults.

Imho the Church would be a far far better off without such “defenders”.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

No, I mean it, I got as far as clicking the report button.

I asked you to substantiate your claim and all you’ve done is yet more ducking and diving.

---

I’m done here as the “defenders” have proved beyond reasonable doubt that they have no case whatsoever. They have tried to dismiss JPII and the Pontifical Commission and have brought no evidence at all for any of their claims. Instead there has been a whole lot of wriggling, wild conspiracy theories, history denial and outrageous insults.

Imho the Church would be a far far better off without such “defenders”.

What can I say, have you ever reread some of your own comments? Or Dr. Taffy’s?

And besides I happen to think it is true.

Linus2nd

 

[Stephen168]

I asked you to substantiate your claim and all you’ve done is yet more ducking and diving.

---

I’m done here as the “defenders” have proved beyond reasonable doubt that they have no case whatsoever. They have tried to dismiss JPII and the Pontifical Commission and have brought no evidence at all for any of their claims. Instead there has been a whole lot of wriggling, wild conspiracy theories, history denial and outrageous insults.

See Post 291

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Of course it matters. SInce you started the thread, if anyone is “fixated on the sins of the Catholic Church” it is you. But in your case, to present a revisionist version of history in which the Church never did anything wrong.

Inocente (and I) only react to the thread you set before us.

Interesting claim. So the Pope, the Cardinals, the Inquisition all persecuted Galileo, yet this was not the action of “the Church”? We’ll get back to this later.

They do. And they apologise. For example, the BBC apologised for the Jimmy Saville scandal.

What they do not then do (on the whole) is turn around and ruin the effect of the apology by claiming that actually they did nothing wrong and it is all down to others lying about them.

For example, in your OP:

Despite sneering that

you never backed up or retracted this assertion. Likewise you have accused Inocente of making ‘false assertions’ - before finally admitting that at least one of those accusations was baseless.

Again, your entire OP is a defense of the affair - again and again in this thread you have tried to argue that Galileo had not proven his case, and that this somehow justified the Church’s behaviour. To quote you again:

The most ‘egostistical’ thing Galileo did was try to express his genuinely held beliefs. What you try to pass off as mere vanity on the part of the Pope was the grotesquely immoral act of dragging a sick old man, his friend, across Italy in the middle of winter to threaten him with torture and death, force him to renounce his beliefs and affirm one that he held correctly to be false and then imprison him under house arrest for the rest of his life, censor his book and forbid anyone in the western world from even holding the belief that we now know to be true.

It is precisely because you do not see that this is defending a grotesquely immoral act that the Galileo affair remains relevant today.

Interesting. Contrast to the statement above that the Church cannot sin because “it is the individuals in a Church which sin”: why does “the Church” get the credit for any charitable act carried out by Catholics, but no blame for acts carried out by the Pope, the Cardinals and the Inquisition?

Typical anti-atheist bigotry. Atheists have, literally, nothing in common. All we have in common is a lack of a certain belief. So why would we do the Catholic thing of helping people but making darn certain that they know that this is an atheist helping them? We just help them, without making a song and dance about our personal religious beliefs. Many of those working even for ‘Catholic’ charities are atheist, let alone the many many secular charities such as Medecins Sans Frontieres.

Do you think that demanding recognition for your help makes you more virtuous than those who just help without demanding anything in return?

Most other churches, most western Governments, WHO, and so on. Get over yourself.

If I wanted to destroy the Catholic Church, I would be cheering you on. Nothing looks as bad as ‘apologising’ and then explaining that the whole thing was your victim’s fault.

Nor is it an ‘attack’ on the Church to point out that it is humanly fallible, has failed, and should admit that fact.

And the most atheist western countries are not only not “a kind of hell on earth” (show respect for other peoples’ countries, please) but have some of the highest qualities of life and societal health measures on the planet. It is religious countries who score poorly there.

In response to these comments I said, " I think you are congentially incapable of making an objective judgment in regard to this issue - and others I imagine. " Inocente has come to your defense by pointing out that this was a very uncharitable remark. I did not mean to insult your intelligence but admit I was " hitting back. " Please accept my apologies, I will try to do better in the future. After all we are all brothers and sisters and we were all created by God, so we should act like we had the same Father.

But I still disagree with your assessment.

Linus2nd

 

[DrTaffy]

In response to these comments…

Um, no. You refused to respond to those comments except with the following:

A typical biased response. Continual denials do not amount to truth. Of course you disagree, that is expected. Nothing of substance here.

Which was more than a little unfair as at least some of what I wrote was a direct response to questions of yours.

You accused me of congenital defects in response to this:

And yet in the Galileo affair, the Church very clearly and explicitly used a literal interpretation of the Bible to conclude that heliocentrism was false. Sticking your fingers in your ears and singing “lalala I can’t hear you” will not change this fact, and merely illustrates how some Catholics still do not understand what St Augustine clearly warned you against.

…I said, " I think you are congentially incapable of making an objective judgment in regard to this issue - and others I imagine. " Inocente has come to your defense by pointing out that this was a very uncharitable remark.

I think the appropriate term is ‘blatantly offensive’, not ‘uncharitable’

I did not mean to insult your intelligence but admit I was " hitting back. " Please accept my apologies,

OK, I will accept your apology if you can either:
a) admit that you did in fact intend to insult my intelligence (remember what I have said about ruining apologies by linking them to claims that you did nothing wrong?)
or
b) give a reasonable explanation of what other purpose could possibly be served by accusing me of congenital defects?

If you want extra brownie points, try either documenting or retracting your original claim of “lies that you still find repeated in high school and university texts”.

But I still disagree with your assessment.

That you are free to do. Claiming that I am mentally defective is not socially acceptable behaviour.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Um, no. You refused to respond to those comments except with the following:

I didn’t care to respond since we had already covered most of those points.

Which was more than a little unfair as at least some of what I wrote was a direct response to questions of yours.

But I had responded priviously, eithe to you or someone else.

You accused me of congenital defects in response to this:

No, I meant to the topic in general. I don’t accept your objectons as valid.

I think the appropriate term is ‘blatantly offensive’, not ‘uncharitable’

Well, O.K.

OK, I will accept your apology if you can either:
a) admit that you did in fact intend to insult my intelligence (remember what I have said about ruining apologies by linking them to claims that you did nothing wrong?)

I didn’t say I did nothing wrong, I say now that I did you an injustice, and that I was " hitting back. ".

b) give a reasonable explanation of what other purpose could possibly be served by accusing me of congenital defects?

The fact that your interpretation of the event is so singular and unchanging.

If you want extra brownie points, try either documenting or retracting your original claim of “lies that you still find repeated in high school and university texts”.

Since I don’t have access to these texbooks myself, which I have stated previously, I relied upon the sources and examples I gave. And I still maintain that these distortions do exist in textbooks - or at least that they are repeated in the classroom via lecture or multi-media products. Of course you are just as free to deny that none of this exists. But remember thousands of people have viewed these discussions and no one has objected except the two or three on this thread.

That you are free to do. Claiming that I am mentally defective is not socially acceptable behaviour.

I never said it was.

Linus2nd

 

[weller2]

You never responded to this either. Maybe you missed it…

Consider the following statement:

The Earth moves around the Sun.

And please explain whether this statement was (a) true and (b) heretical in 1634.

These don’t look like my claims, maybe you can quote,where I did.

Sorry, I was quoting from memory. Here is what you have said:

1639 After correcting Kepler, Jeremiah Horrocks predicts and was the first to obverse a transit of venus across the sun.
1657 is the first chance to verify Kepler’s prediction of the location of Mars is better than Copernicus or Ptolemy.

Can you provide an explanations why exactly these observations were necessary to validate Kepler’s model?

Also, please explain the following:

1822- The Church removes De Revolutionibus and Dialogue Concerning two World Systems from the Index
1838- Stellar parallax was first observed by Friedrich Bessel providing prove that the earth moves.

If stellar parallax is the only good proof of Earth’s motion, why did the Church remove prohibition on geocentrism 16 years before the proof was presented?

 

[DrTaffy]

I didn’t care to respond since we had already covered most of those points.

Then why not respond at least to the ones we had not covered?

I am pretty certain that you have not explained why you feel that the Church should get the credit if a local parish group runs a soup kitchen, but not get the blame when the Pope, cardinals and Inquisition persecuted Galileo.

b) give a reasonable explanation of what other purpose could possibly be served by accusing me of congenital defects?

That really doesn’t answer the question. It may explain why you felt that way, but not what other interpretation could be put on your words.

No matter, I was just curious and it is not worth pursuing. So, carefully qualified apology accepted without the condition.

Since I don’t have access to these texbooks myself, which I have stated previously, I relied upon the sources and examples I gave. And I still maintain that these distortions do exist in textbooks - or at least that they are repeated in the classroom via lecture or multi-media products.

If you cannot document the allegation, should you not retract it by your own standards?

Provide the documation or admit it didn’t happen. To hurl out accusations of moral culpability is more than gossip, it is slander.

 

[Stephen168]

Consider the following statement:

The Earth moves around the Sun.

And please explain whether this statement was (a) true and (b) heretical in 1634.

Sorry, I was quoting from memory. Here is what you have said:

Can you provide an explanations why exactly these observations were necessary to validate Kepler’s model?

Also, please explain the following:

If stellar parallax is the only good proof of Earth’s motion, why did the Church remove prohibition on geocentrism 16 years before the proof was presented?

Are you claiming Galileo proved the earth went around the sun and not the other way around?